August 18, 2008
Aug 18 05:13 McCain Campaign Fuming At Obama/Mitchell Spin Aug 18 06:10 KSTP Poll Highlights Franken's Troubles Aug 18 06:36 Independence Party Candidate Takes Aim At Tinklenberg Aug 18 07:39 Voters Take Note Of McCain's Foreign Policy Expertise Aug 18 08:10 That's Meeting the Challenge? Aug 18 11:19 Obama Complains That McCain Changes Mind On Drilling Aug 18 20:05 Rep. Pence Challenges Speaker Pelosi to "Full & Open Debate" Aug 18 20:32 The Real Barack Obama
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
McCain Campaign Fuming At Obama/Mitchell Spin
Yesterday morning, NBC's Andrea Mitchell told Meet the Press's audience that McCain had won the Saddleback Forum, which is accurate from everything I've read and the little that I was able to see. Then she engaged in a little gossip session with David Gregory. Here's what she said:
Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared."I don't have a problem with Ms. Mitchell bringing forth that type of gossip if she then reports that she's checked into the allegation and found it to be without merit. Ms. Mitchell didn't do that. She simply reported the rumor. That isn't reporting. That's gossipmongering.
According to this Mike Allen article , the McCain campaign wants a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News ASAP. Here's the text of their letter to Capus:
Steve:McCain and other Republicans understand that there's a definite liberal bias in news reporting on the networks. That isn't what they're complaining about. What they're complaining about is Andrea Mitchell repeating the Obama campaign's untruthful allegations. If Mitchell is highlighting the spin, then it's important to (a) check into the allegation and (b) report that you couldn't find substantiation to the rumor.
We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.
Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell's comments on "Meet the Press" this morning. In analyzing last night's presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he "may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." Here are Andrea Mitchell's comments in full:
Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/17/08)
Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of "Meet the Press" viewers with no indication that 1.) There's not one shred of evidence that it's true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren's idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;" 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot.
Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.
This is irresponsible journalism and sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle. Instead of examining the Obama campaign's spin for truth before reporting it to more than 3 million NBC News viewers, Andrea Mitchell simply passed along Obama campaign conspiracy theories. The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed. In the forum, John McCain clearly demonstrated to the American people that he is prepared to be our next President.....
We are concerned that your News Division is following MSNBC's lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
John McCain 2008
A simple call to Rick Warren would've put that rumor to rest.
Had Mitchell done her due diligence, she would've told MTP's audience that the Obama campaign had engaged in hurtful spin that was unsubstantiated. That would've dramatically changed the tone of NBC's gossipmongering.
There's two other important points to be made. NBC News hasn't been a straight news reporting organization for over a year. There was a time when they actually broke stories. Those days are history.
Many is the time during 2006 and 2007 that John Murtha appeared on MTP. During those interviews, Murtha would use the same statistics that he'd always used, things like 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out, that unemployment was 70 percent, etc. Tim Russert went from being a tough interrogator prior to those interviews to asking a question, then letting Rep. Murtha ramble on with that section of his monologue. That isn't journalism. That's taking dictation.
The point is that NBC stopped challenging the people being interviewed. NBC stopped digging into whether the rumors they'd heard were substantive. In short, they've become the network of the latest gossip.
Let's also remember that MSNBC used Keith Olbermann and Chris 'I get a tingle in my leg every time Obama speaks' Matthews as their studio announcers on primary nights.
It's important that NBC be held to account for their unprofessionalism. They've become the home for sloppy reporting. I applaud Sen. McCain's campaign for going after this instance of NBC's sloppy journalism.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 5:14 AM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 18-Aug-08 07:12 AM
"That isn't reporting. That's gossipmongering."
And if they didn't do that, Republicans would never win an election. Remember Reagan and his welfare cadillac queen? There wasn't one, but the press repeated what Reagan said in print, what seems like every time Reagan said it. And these days, Republicans keep repeating the line: "the chinese are drilling 60 miles off the Florida coast." They aren't, but that doesn't stop Republicans from saying it, and the press from repeating it.
Quite frankly, the press is incompetent, and if they have any bias at all, it's towards you guys because you bitch and whine so much when it doesn't go your way.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 18-Aug-08 07:23 AM
Okay this comes from the person who said on another blog he will post by his name Tommy Johnson. The fact that you don't know your name isn't credible.
Wow isn't it an amazing coincindence when you have a pro Democrat host for the meet the press that Andrea did it.
Mitchell was just dying to say it.
But this lack of objective coverage helps cause that Obama fatigue that shows up in the polls.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
KSTP Poll Highlights Franken's Troubles
This KSTP/SurveyUSA poll shows the Minnesota senate race tightening but that Al Franken still having significant difficulties. Here's one thing that should have Franken's campaign worried:
Seventy-four percent of likely DFL voters said they support Franken.I'm confident that more than 74 percent of Democrats will vote for Franken, though I don't know if it'll be significantly higher than that. The reason why this statistic should worry Franken is because it suggests there isn't a positive enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats.
Let's remember those early primaries where GOP turnout was less than half of the Democrats' primary turnout. Talk swept through the punditocracy that this would be a disastrous year for Republicans, that Democrats might gain the trifecta of holding the White House, increasing their majority in the House and having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Then came the Jeremiah Wright tapes and Rush's Operation Chaos. Rush's Operation Chaos lengthened the primary process. The Wright tapes put Obama back on his heals. Suddenly discord appeared in the Democrats' ranks. That dissention still exists.
Factor in Mr. Franken's offputting jokes and his temper and you'll have problems connecting with voters, even from your own party.
Here's another statistic that should worry Franken:
Republican incumbent Norm Coleman leads DFL challenger Al Franken by seven points, 46 to 39.I've been tracking these polls for months. Franken has difficulty reaching the mid forties. In fact, he's occasionally had difficulty reaching the forties. It's difficult to take a challenger seriously if they can't break the forty percent mark.
The important thing going forward for the Coleman campaign is to just keep doing the solid thing. Sen. Coleman got a significant bump in the polls when he announced his pro-drilling, pro-nuclear power bill. That told Republicans that he was serious about solving the energy crisis.
His next step forward is to avoid joining in any Gang of 10 'compromise' disasters. If Sen. Coleman steadfastly opposes major tax increases like those found in the Gang of 10 bill, he'll be on the right side of the energy issue.
By itself, that's a big deal because it's the most important issue this year.
Here's one final statistic that should worry Franken:
Coleman leads Franken by 11 points among men 50-39. He also leads by three points among women, 42 to 39.Here's an old joke about Democrats and women: What do you call a Democrat that doesn't win the women's vote? Out of work. Granted, it isn't a funny joke but it's accurate. Democrats that don't do well with women are toast because they historically lose the male vote by double digits.
This race isn't over but I'd rather be in Sen. Coleman's shoes than Franken's.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 6:11 AM
No comments.
Independence Party Candidate Takes Aim At Tinklenberg
Much to my delight, I found an editorial in this morning's St. Cloud Times that takes direct aim at El Tinklenberg. The LTE was written by IP candidate Bob Anderson. It focuses on the energy issue. Here's the opening of Mr. Anderson's LTE:
If Elwyn Tinklenberg wants to end partisan sniping, he should encourage his Democrat-controlled Congress to open all resources in America, including ANWR.You'll recall that I made much the same statement in this post :
The majority of the country wants it. His party's Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is refusing to call a vote in Congress while she is out peddling her book.
Congress isn't locked in a partisan faceoff. Nancy Pelosi's Democrats voted to adjourn for 5 weeks without Congress considering any energy bills where Republicans could offer an amendment. Each of the non-energy energy bills that the Democrats offered were offered under a closed rule, meaning that amendments couldn't be offered by either Republicans or Democrats.Mr. Tinklenberg hasn't criticized Speaker Pelosi, possibly because he doesn't disagree with her goal to "save the planet."
Here's another shot Mr. Anderson takes at Mr. Tinklenberg:
As far as Elwyn being a member on the house transportation committee with Rep. Jim Oberstar, I feel he has already been a little too cozy with Rep. Oberstar as a lobbyist in his Tinklenberg Group. That is not the way to deal with transportation issues.That doesn't sound like a healthy relationship, though it's undeniably a cozy relationship. It isn't a great thing to have Mr. Tinklenberg attached at the hip to a pork baron who hands out money as rewards for doing what Rep. Oberstar wants, not because of the nation's needs.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 6:36 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 18-Aug-08 07:08 AM
Gary I thought the Independence party endorsed Tink. Is there a contested primary for the independence party endorsement for the sixth?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Aug-08 07:42 AM
The IP did endorse Tink. Mr. Anderson must be challenging him in the Sept. 9 primary.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 18-Aug-08 01:44 PM
wouldn't it be great if he can with primary. Than we lose part of the combined vote which Democrats say has more votes than Michelle Bachmann got in 2006.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Voters Take Note Of McCain's Foreign Policy Expertise
People are taking notice that John McCain knows what he's talking about on national security matters. Recent polling shows Sen. McCain opening a significant gap over Sen. Obama on national security:
The reemergence of the national security gap comes amid the first headline-grabbing world conflict of the 2008 campaign, the Russian invasion of Georgia that highlights the potential for a dramatic military event to upend the political landscape, and likely aid McCain.I can tell you from reading more than a few polls that having a +50-someting point gap between favorable vs. unfavorable is almost unheard of. Having a +8 is commonplace.
July's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can "handle" the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he "cannot," compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.
David Paul Kuhn makes a special note of Sen. McCain's initial statement when Russia invaded Georgia vs. Sen. Obama's neutral initial statement:
When violence between Russia and Georgia escalated to war earlier this month, McCain's first statement demanded that "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory."Sen. McCain's initial statement showed the world that he understood that the invasion was Putin's Russia flexing its muscles in an attempt to reconstruct the old Soviet empire. Sen. McCain's statement was forceful and direct.
Obama's first statement, by contrast, delicately avoided the question of responsibility. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war," he said. Later that day, Obama blamed Russia for the invasion. By Saturday, the Democrat had moved still closer to McCain's position: "Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
In contrast, Sen. Obama sounded like a deer in the headlights. I can picture him asking his advisers to get a map, asking them to point to where Georgia is. OK, that's a little sarcastic. Still, I don't think people feel comfortable with Sen. Obama's handling of foreign crises.
I think the gap goes deeper than just the candidates' initial statements. Susan Rice, a potential SecState in an Obama administration, and Tim Kaine, the possible VP choice for Sen. Obama, both embarassed themselves over the weekend.
Meanwhile, Sen. McCain campaigned in Pennsylvania last week with former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge and Sen. Joe Lieberman. During each of his campaign stops, Sen. McCain emphasized the fact that he has a relationship with Georgia President Saakashvili going back a couple of decades and that he was in contact with President Saakashvili daily.
Pundits correctly said that Sen. McCain was walking a tightrope, noting that he had to sound firm without sounding like a warmonger. That's precisely what Sen. McCain did. He spoke about dropping Russia out of the G-8 and denying Putin's Russian entry into the WTO. Additionally, Sen. McCain spoke about putting Georgia and other former eastern bloc countries, especially Ukraine, on the fast track to NAATO membership.
McCain did something else that didn't get the attention it deserves. He tied domestic drilling to the Russo-Georgian crisis. The reason why that's important is because Russia has been flourishing with high gas prices. By increasing drilling here, prices drop on the world market, robbing Putin's Russia of important revenue needed for its expansionist agenda.
Even Zbigniew Brzezinski noticed the difference in opening statements:
Brzezinski added, "I thought that the first comments" by Obama "were perhaps too general and didn't perhaps address sharply enough the moral and strategic dimensions of the problem." Obama's later statements, he said, struck the right tone.TRANSLATION: McCain looked authoritative; Obama looked like he wanted his advisers.
"In the meantime, McCain was able to leap into the timing gap," Brzezinski continued. "Timing in all these things, timing, tone and ability to crystallize the issue sharply, is what is important."
Sen. Obama won't pass the Commander-in-Chief threshold by looking that tentative. He needs to show a greater grasp of the facts.
I understand that domestic issues will likely play a bigger role in this election than foreign policy. That said, McCain's position on increasing energy supplies helps him more than hold his own on the economy against Sen. OBama.
That means foreign policy/national security play a more important role. If that's what happens, that favors Sen. McCain by a significant margin.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 7:41 AM
No comments.
That's Meeting the Challenge?
Last Friday, the Tinklenberg campaign issued a challenge to its supporters to raise $15,000 to "shed light on Rep. Michele Bachmann's embarrassing record and spread El Tinklenberg's bi-partisan message for change."
According to their graph, they've raised $11,352 thus far, an average of $3,784/day. Considering the fact that Rep. Bachmann held a CoH advantage of over $1 million at the last reporting, I'd say that the Tinklenberg campaign needs to put its fundraising operation on steroids. Those numbers are positively anemic.
It's more than just the numbers, though. What this means is that Mr. Tinklenberg's campaign isn't attracting alot of interest or gaining much traction on the issues. If Mr. Tinklenberg's campaign can't get traction on at least a couple issues soon, he'll have difficulty making this a serious race.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 8:10 AM
No comments.
Obama Complains That McCain Changes Mind On Drilling
During one of his campaign stops yesterday, Sen. Obama complained that Sen. McCain had changed his mind about offshore drilling :
"McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling," Obama said of McCain's energy policy.back in late June, I noted John Meynard Keynes' famous quote :
The GOP hopeful has become a vocal proponent of offshore oil drilling as a way to ease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and has criticized Obama for failing to embrace it as a way to help bring down oil prices. Obama noted that McCain had long opposed lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.
When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"It isn't entirely clear why that hasn't sunken in with Sen. Obama. for that matter, it isn't clear that the Democratic majorities in the House or Senate have figured things out with regard to energy policy.
Sen. McCain changed his mind when gas reached $4/gallon. Sen. McCain changed his mind because he knew that high gas prices had the potential of tanking the economy. He knew that high gas prices were causing unbearable inflation for consumers. I'd say that those are pretty solid reasons for changing one's mind. I'm betting that most people would agree.
Sen. Obama obviously thinks that those aren't good enough reasons, that there had to be an ulterior motive. What's odd is that it's Sen. Obama that's shifted more often than desert sand in a windstorm on the energy issue. Perhaps his handlers didn't tell him that he shifted positions from drilling being a Republican "scheme" during a campaign stop in Missouri to saying he was open to drilling when campaigning in Florida.
I noted here that Sen. Obama shifted his position when polling in the Sunshine State showed 60 percent of Floridians favored drilling off Florida's coast. I also noted that Obama's shift didn't occur after a major price spike or a supply shortage. It happened immediately after the polling came out.
The good news is that the McCain camp didn't wait long to respond:
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers responded, "John McCain has never questioned Sen. Obama's patriotism, but he clearly does question Sen. Obama's experience and judgment, and they do have profound differences of opinion on the best way to reduce our dependence on Mideast oil, bring jobs back to America and keep our nation safe."Make no mistake about one thing: the economic model that a McCain administration would follow is dramatically different than the socialist model that an Obama administration would follow. It's also undeniable that a McCain administration would be significantly more sure-footed with national security and foreign policy issues than an Obama administration.
Sen. McCain's already proven that with the Russian-Georgian crisis. Sen. Obama took several statements and valuable hours to finally get to where Sen. McCain started at.
Sen. Obama's attempt to cast Sen. McCain as a poll-watching flip-flopper wasn't Sen. Obama's only sidestepping of the truth :
He tried to accomplish the second goal by using some of his strongest rhetoric to date. "Toss the bums out, we're starting from scratch, we're starting over. This is not working," Obama said referring to what he believes voters should be thinking about the Republicans.Excuse me, Sen. Obama, but didn't Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006? Don't tell me that your advisers didn't tell you that. Then again, they might've thought that God was omniscient and didn't need reminding. It might just be that Sen. Obama has a habit of making wild, inaccurate statements when he's working a crowd:
"Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw 'em out," he said, but acknowledged that "American politics aren't that simple."
Sen. Obama sounds cocky but he's a lightweight who hasn't had to make a difficult decision in his life. The presidency isn't the place to start learning how to make difficult decisions that affect millions of people's lives or that can change the course of history.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 18-Aug-08 07:53 PM
We've seen this movie before. Bill Clinton waffled, asked his advisors, danced, checked the polls, made a decision, denied making the decision and had his spokespeople clarify the decision for us. We do not need a rerun in Obama. Clinton did this with Usama bin Laden and costed us a chance to detain him and costed 3,000 innocent people their lives.
Rep. Pence Challenges Speaker Pelosi to "Full & Open Debate"
Now that Speaker Pelosi has changed her mind on allowing a vote on drilling, Republicans are stepping up the pressure on what should be included in debating the bill. One leader that's stepping forward is Mike Pence. Here's the text of Rep. Pence's letter to Speaker Pelosi :
Since Congress adjourned on August 1st, House Republicans have taken to the House floor to call upon the Speaker of the House to bring Congress back into session and allow a vote on comprehensive energy legislation that would provide the American people more access to American oil.It's obvious that Republicans won't be satisfied with voting on just any bill. They want their amendments heard and voted on. Specifically, they want the AEA voted on. Any attempt by Speaker Pelosi to thwart amendments to their legislation will be met with fierce opposition.
It seems that Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally may be getting the message. When the floor protest began over two weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi said Republicans would have to use our 'imagination' to get a vote on more domestic drilling. By last week she apparently had changed her position, telling a national television audience for the first time that Congress 'can have a vote' on more domestic drilling. On Saturday in a national radio address, Speaker Pelosi went on to say that the Democrats' plan 'will consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling...'
Now that Speaker Pelosi has announced her willingness to allow a vote on comprehensive energy legislation that would allow more domestic drilling, the American people should hold her to this commitment and demand that Congress immediately return to Washington, D.C. and vote.
And when Congress votes, there must be a full and fair debate that allows the Republican minority the opportunity to debate and vote on the American Energy Act , an 'all of the above' approach to energy legislation that encompasses more drilling, more use of clean energy sources and more conservation .
The American people should not have to wait any longer for Congress to take dramatic action toward energy independence."
If the Democratic majority attempts to thwart Republicans from having meaningful input into this legislation, then the Republican minority will tell the American people that Speaker Pelosi is interrupting the process. The American people will be told about the American Energy Act's provisions day after day. Republican leaders will ask Speaker Pelosi why she isn't willing to allow amendments with such thoughtful provisions.
House Republicans have the stronger hand here. Denmocrats are playing defense in a big way. Democrats that don't vote for the AEA will be vulnerable this November. The American people will wonder why they wouldn't vote for an all of the above energy bill. If Democrats give a wishy washy answer, they'll be hurt.
I'm predicting in this post that Democrats will do everything possible to thwart the Republican minority. If Democrats use a closed rule, their bill will be defeated.
Democrats backed themselves into a lose-lose corner. If they use a closed rule, their bill gets defeated and Republican candidates will ask their Democratic opponents why they didn't sign the discharge petition for the AEA. If they open up the amendment process, then defeat the AEA, Republican candidates will ask their Democratic opponents why they didn't vote for such a sensible plan. If Democrats actually vote for the AEA, their campaign warchests will dry up fast because their environmental allies will feel abandoned.
I wouldn't want to be in the Democrats' shoes at this point.
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 8:07 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 19-Aug-08 12:42 AM
Gary lets not forget that the Democrats made a big deal if given control they will allow amendments and full debates on bills. Every candidate (especially Brian Davis) should have a commercial ready that shows a comment on open debate and than lay out how the democrats wouldn't allow amendments let alone a vote on this issue. Than end it a vote for Tim Walz is a vote not to debate let alone vote on real energy plans.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The Real Barack Obama
Until now, Barack Obama has has some success casting himself as a moderate. Thanks to David Freddoso's book and Mr. Freddoso's column , we now know different. Freddoso's column for NRO rips the cover off of Sen. Obama's facade.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked "neutrality" language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.Wwhen Mr. Freddoso says that there's documented proof, this is what he's refering to:
Obama's work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one, so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.
But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific "neutrality" language - redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature's website here to see the language of the "Senate Amendment 1," which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called "neutrality clause" on Roe that everyone is talking about:What type of ghoulish monster votes against a bill that protects fully born babies outside the womb? This isn't just about abortion, which is bad enough. This was an instance of Sen. Obama voting against giving legal protection to babies outside the mother's womb.1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 "(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.".
This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading "DP#1"(or "Do Pass" Amendment 1), we see that Obama's committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill . In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six "No" votes .
Sen. Obama has plenty of explaining to do on this one. This won't even play well with pro choice voters. I recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan's quote after voting to ban partial birth abortions. He said that, after reviewing the procedure that it was "too close to infanticide" for his liking.
This isn't just "too close to infanticide". It is infanticide.
I don't see how this doesn't strip away Sen. Obama's facade of being a moderate. It's too ghoulish not to draw a visceral reaction from thoughtful people.
UPDATE: Rich Lowry hsa more on Sen. Obama's ghoulishness here .
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 9:26 PM
No comments.
